RAGINI SINHA versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. on 7 January 2019

68

SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2019] 1 S.C.R. 68

[2019] 1 S.C.R.

A

RAGINI SINHA

v.

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 7224-7225 of 2012)

BJANUARY 07, 2019

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 – Claim petitions filed by twopersons (applicants) against the appellant under the 1948 Act –Grievance of applicants was that they worked with appellant onCher land for about 2 years but she did not pay them their legitimatewages – Competent authority allowed the claim petitions andimposed penalty also on the appellant – Appellate authority upheldthe order of competent authority – High Court dismissed the writpetitions – On appeal, held: No case for interference made out –DQuestion as to whether the two workers ever worked with theappellant and, if so, for how much period and how much wageswere payable to them by their employer were the material questions,which were gone into by the competent authority and appellateauthority and decided in favour of the two workers – A concurrentfinding of fact recorded on these issues was binding on the HighECourt while deciding the writ petitions and the intra Court appeals– Writ Court rightly dismissed the writ petitions inter alia on theground of non-impleadment of the two workers in whose favour theorders were passed by the authorities under the Act as they werenecessary parties in the writ petitions – Impleadment applicationFfiled by appellant in the intra Court appeals after a long lapse oftime was rightly dismissed on the ground of delay and laches –Moreover, in the meantime, both the workers also expired and theirlegal representatives were not made parties either in the intra Courtappeals or in these appeals – This ground was, therefore, enoughfor dismissal of the writ petitions, intra Court appeals and theseGappeals – Appellant was afforded a sufficient opportunity to defendand which she also availed of – That apart, no case of prejudicewas made out by the appellant at any stage of the proceedings –Having regard to the nature of breaches committed by the appellantand which were held proved, the authority was justified in imposing H

the penalty on her – Authority has the power under the Act to imposethe penalty, once the breaches alleged against the employer areproved – The appellate authority, the writ Court and the DivisionBench in their respective jurisdiction rightly did not interfere onany of these issues – Appellant is directed to calculate the amountpayable to the two workers and pay to their legal representatives –Necessary party – Delay/laches – Labour laws.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

HELD: What is involved in this case is a pure question offact which cannot be gone into in these appeals. A concurrentfinding of fact recorded on these issues by the two authoritieswas binding on the High Court while deciding the writ petitionsand the intra Court appeals. The claim in question relates to theyear 1991 and pertains to the payment of minimum wages payableto two workers, who are now dead and not represented beforethis Court. However, the appellant has not been able to makeout any case on merits. The only grievance of the appellant beforethe High Court was that she was not afforded an adequateopportunity in the proceedings and secondly penalty imposed bythe authorities on her was excessive in quantum and hence eitherit should be set aside or reduced to some extent. There is nomerit in these submissions. The appellant was afforded a sufficientopportunity to defend and which she also availed of. That apart,no material was produced by the appellant at any stage of theproceedings to show that any prejudice was caused to her. Havingregard to the nature of breaches committed by the appellant andwhich were held proved, the authority was justified in imposingthe penalty on the appellant. The authority has the power underthe Act to impose the penalty, once the breaches alleged againstthe employer are proved. The appellant is directed to calculatethe entire amount payable to the two workers (since dead) interms of the impugned orders and the same be paid to the legalrepresentatives of the two workers within three months fromthe date of this order. [Paras 12, 17 and 19][71-E, F; 72-B-E, G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.7224-7225 of 2012.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.01.2008 of the HighCourt of Judicature at Patna in LPA Nos. 530 and 620 of 1998.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AVivek Singh, Swastik Dalai, Santosh Kumar - I, Advs. for theAppellant.

Gopal Singh, Vivek Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1.These appeals aredirected against the final judgment and order dated 18.01.2008 passedby the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No.530/1998 and orderdated 18.01.2008 in LPA No.620/1998 whereby the High Court dismissedthe appeals filed by the appellant herein and confirmed the orders of theSingle Judge dated 31.03.1998 passed in CWJC No.12009/1996 andCdated 22.04.1998 in CWJC No.12010/1996.

2. The controversy involved in these appeals lies in a narrowcompass as would be clear from the few facts mentioned hereinbelow.

3. Two persons, namely, Santosh Kumar and Hira Singh filedDtheir claim petitions before the competent authority under the MinimumWages Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”) against the appellant herein beingcase Nos. MW (2) - 19/93 and MW (2) - 20/93.

4. In these claim petitions, the respondents claimed that they hadworked with the appellant on her land for the period from 01.01.1991 to30.10.1992 but she did not pay them their legitimate wages despiteErendering their services for her.

5. This, in substance, was their grievance. The two applicants(workers/employees), therefore, claimed that their legitimate wages forthe period in question be determined in the light of the provisions of theAct and the claimants be accordingly paid their minimum wages for theFperiod in question by the appellant.

6. The appellant contested the matter. An enquiry was accordinglyheld. Report from the concerned authority was also called for. By orderdated 29.10.1995 the competent authority allowed the claim petitions ofthe two workers and accordingly directed the appellant (employer) toGpay them wages as determined along with the penalty amount awardedby the authority.

7. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal before the appellateauthority under the Act. By order dated 08.10.1996, the appellate authoritydismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the competent authority.

H

8. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed writ petition in the HighCourt at Patna. By orders dated 31.03.1998 and 22.04.1998, the SingleJudge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The appellant feltaggrieved and filed LPAs before the Division Bench in the High Court.By impugned orders, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals, whichhave given rise to filing of these appeals by way of special leave by theappellant(employer) in this Court.

9. The short question, which arises for consideration in theseappeals, is whether the High Court was justified in upholding the orderspassed by the two authorities under the Act.

10. We have heard Mr. Vivek Singh, learned counsel for theappellant and Mr. Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents andhave also perused the written submissions filed by the counsel for theappellant.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case and the written submissions of the learnedcounsel, we find no merit in these appeals.

12. In our considered opinion, no case has been made out to callfor any interference in the impugned orders for more than one reason.Firstly, what is involved in this case is a pure question of fact whichcannot be gone into in these appeals; Secondly, the question as to whetherthe two workers ever worked with the appellant and, if so, for howmuch period and how much wages were payable to them by theiremployer are the material questions, which were gone into by thecompetent authority and appellate authority and decided in favour of thetwo workers. A concurrent finding of fact recorded on these issues bythe two authorities was binding on the High Court while deciding thewrit petitions and the intra Court appeals; Thirdly, the writ Court rightlydismissed the writ petitions inter alia on the ground that two workers inwhose favour the orders had been passed by the authorities under theAct were necessary parties in the writ petitions and since they were notimpleaded in the writ petitions, the writ petitions were liable to bedismissed on this ground alone; Fourthly, even in the intra Court appeals,the appellant though filed an application for their impleadment but it wasdone after a long lapse of time and, therefore, the Division Bench rightlydismissed the application on the ground of delay and laches. Moreover,in the meantime, both the workers also expired and their legal AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Arepresentatives were not made parties either in the intra Court appealsor in these appeals. This ground is, therefore, enough for dismissal ofthe writ petitions, intra Court appeals and these appeals.

13. That apart, we find that the claim in question relates to theyear 1991 and pertains to the payment of minimum wages payable toBtwo workers, who are now dead and not represented before this Court.

14. Even then we examined the appellant’s case on merits. We,however, find that the appellant has not been able to make out any caseon merits.

15. The only grievance of the appellant before the High CourtCwas that she was not afforded an adequate opportunity in the proceedingsand secondly penalty imposed by the authorities on her was excessive inquantum and hence either it should be set aside or reduced to someextent.

16. We find no merit in the aforementioned submissions. In ourDview, the appellant was afforded a sufficient opportunity to defend andwhich she also availed of. That apart, no material was produced by theappellant at any stage of the proceedings to show that any prejudicewas caused to her. We also find that having regard to the nature ofbreaches committed by the appellant and which were held proved, theEauthority was justified in imposing the penalty on the appellant.

17. It is not in dispute that the authority has the power under theAct to impose the penalty, once the breaches alleged against the employerare proved. Neither the appellate authority, nor the writ Court and northe Division Bench in their respective jurisdiction considered it proper tointerfere on any of these issues and, in our view, rightly.F

18. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit inthese appeals. The appeals thus fail and are accordingly dismissed.

19. The appellant is directed to calculate the entire amount payableto the two workers (since dead) in terms of the impugned orders and theGsame be paid to the legal representatives of the two workers withinthree months from the date of this order. Let the compliance report besubmitted by the appellant within three months to this Court and also tothe concerned competent authority.

RAGINI SINHA v. STATE OF BIHAR[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

20. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned competentauthority and one copy of this order be sent on the addresses of the twodeceased workers which are mentioned in the record of the case for theinformation of their legal representatives so that they are able toimplement this order against the appellant for recovery of the awardedsum in their favour.

Devika Gujral

Appeals dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H